On May 2, 2013,
the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland filed a reported opinion in Davis, et vir. v. Martinez, et al., No.
2605 (September Term 2011). This opinion intends to reiterate the majority
holding of Farley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 355
Md. 34 (1999), and to clarify when a jury is allowed to hear that an insurance
company is a named party to a case.
Generally, a party, their
representatives, and their attorneys cannot mention “insurance” during a
personal injury trial, as it is grounds for a possible mistrial if the jury
hears such statements. The reasoning behind this rule is that once a jury knows
that there is an insurance policy to pay a possible judgment, a jury is
influenced to rule in favor of a plaintiff and/or award more monetary damages
against the insurance company than the jury would against an individual or a
company.
The Davis v. Martinez opinion holds that a jury can not only hear the
name of the insurance company when they are a named party to the case, whether
as UM, UIM, breach of contract, or any other action, but the jury is ENTITLED to hear each party’s
name, absent limited exceptions. Unless an insurance company can show an
invasion of privacy, social stigma or a threat of physical harm, then the
insurance company must be identified to the jury. These limited exceptions are
nearly impossible to prove
In deciding this case, the Court of
Special Appeals expressly rejected the notion that the possibility of “adverse
economic consequences” should limit naming an insurance company as a party to
the case. So, what’s in a name? In Maryland, if you are an insurance company
that is a named party to a suit, it now means a jury will hear who you are,
which attorney is representing you, and what expert(s) you have hired to assist
in the defense of your case.
Article Contributed by Derrick Dye
No comments:
Post a Comment